Latest Cases

Unfair dismissal – Constructive dismissal. The employment tribunal had rejected the employee's claim for unfair constructive dismissal that, by preventing his attending work as a salesman, and thereby achieving sales and commission on those sales, the employer had breached the contract of employment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that there had been no error of law in the judgment of the tribunal. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. E was born in 1933 and lived in London. She had an estate worth approximately £30,000,000. In 2008, E executed a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for property and affairs and an LPA for personal welfare, in which she appointed her husband, D, and JK jointly to be her attorneys. She also appointed two replacement attorneys, M and IB, and expressly stated that M was to replace D, and IB was to replace JK. E's children made several applications to the court as a result of M's purported behaviour. M incurred costs dealing with the applications. The Court of Protection held that the costs of the parties were to be assessed on a standard basis and paid out of E's estate. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. By way of an administrative error, the employee's case before the employment tribunal was heard by a single judge, rather than a three person-panel, as requested by the employee. The tribunal dismissed the claim and awarded costs against the employee. In allowing the employee's appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that the error in the composition of the tribunal's panel had been fundamental. It further held that the reasons given by the tribunal were not sufficiently clear to show why the case had been dismissed. Consequently, the case was remitted to a freshly constituted tribunal comprising three members. 

Contract – Construction. A transaction for the sale of a business involved an element of deferred consideration and a dispute arose as to the calculation of the amount of deferred consideration. The parties sought, and the judge granted, various declarations as to the interpretation of the contractual documentation (see Starbev GP Ltd v Interbrew Central European Holdings BV[2014] All ER (D) 193 (Apr)). The parties sought rulings consequential on the judgment. The Commercial Court ruled on the calculation of the deemed equity return and how the provision in the definition of excess equity return in the contingent value right was intended to prevent double-recovery, but refused the defendant permission to re-amend its amended defence and counterclaim to claim interest. 

Practice – Striking out. The claimant, B, had arranged a loan with the defendant bank. He subsequently sought to transfer the loan from himself to a company that he controlled. B and the company brought proceedings against the bank for, among other things, misrepresentation. In the course of proceedings, the bank sought to strike out the claim, and the claimants sought permission to amend the particulars of claim. The Queen's Bench Division held that the application to amend would be dismissed, and judgment would be given for the bank. 

Mental health – Court of protection. AB had cerebral palsy and her medical team did not consider that, in the event of her condition deteriorating, it would be in her best interests to receive certain life sustaining treatment. The applicant Trust sought declarations as to AB's capacity to make decisions about serious medical treatment and as to her best interests in respect of treatment. Following discussions, the parties reached an agreement that it was not in AB's best interests to be given certain life sustaining treatment. In approving the order, the Court of Protection held that the order met AB's best interests. The court gave guidance concerning, among other things, the timing of such applications. 

Costs – Order for costs. The parties sought orders as to costs following trial, in which the claimants' claim for damages for professional negligence against the defendant was dismissed (see Kellie and another v Wheatley & Lloyd Architects Ltd[2014] EWHC 2212 (TCC)). The Technology and Construction Court ordered that the claimants had to pay all of the defendant's costs, to be subject to a detailed assessment on the standard basis if not agreed. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employer's appeal against a decision of the employment tribunal that the employee doctor had been unfairly dismissed. The EAT decided that the tribunal had directed itself correctly in law and had been entitled to hold that the employer had not carried out a reasonable investigation and had not acted fairly in all of the circumstances. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The parents were separated. The mother applied to the court for permission to take their six-year-old son to India, where he had relatives, for three weeks. The Family Court held that the balance came down against granting the mother's application. Comments were made concerning the actions of the Legal Aid Agency with regard, among other things, to the appointment of an expert in Indian law. 

Local government – Inalienable common good land – Jurisdiction of court. Court of Session: Refusing as unnecessary a petition by a local authority, who were proposing to build a new school on land within a public park, seeking an order authorising disposal of the part of the park on which they proposed to construct the school, the court held that the petitioners' proposals were properly characterised as appropriation, rather than a disposal, of inalienable common good land, which appropriation the court had no power to authorise.